Marked versus unmarked tip catheter for less invasive surfactant administration: A crossover randomised controlled manikin trial.

AIM: Less invasive surfactant administration is becoming increasingly popular, but health-care providers may experience some difficulties in achieving the correct positioning of the catheter in the trachea. We compared catheters with marked versus unmarked tips in terms of correct depth positioning in the trachea, total time, number of attempts and participant's opinion on using the device in a manikin model. METHODS: A randomised controlled crossover trial of surfactant administration with less invasive surfactant administration catheters with marked versus unmarked tip in a preterm infant manikin. Fifty tertiary hospital consultants and paediatric residents with previous experience in surfactant administration participated. The primary outcome measure was the positioning of the device at the correct depth in the trachea. The secondary outcome measures were the total time and the number of attempts for positioning the device in the trachea, and participant's opinion on using the device. RESULTS: Correct depth in the trachea was achieved by 38 (76%) and 28 (56%) participants using the catheters with marked and unmarked tip, respectively (P = 0.04). Median time of device positioning (P = 0.08) and number of attempts (P = 0.13) were not statistically different between the two catheters. Participants found the catheter with the marked tip easier to use (P = 0.007), especially concerning the insertion in the trachea (P = 0.04) and the positioning at the correct depth (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In a preterm manikin model, the marked tip catheter offered a higher chance of achieving the correct depth of the device in the trachea and was favoured by the participants.

Rigid versus soft catheter for less invasive surfactant administration: A crossover randomized controlled manikin trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared surfactant administration with a rigid versus soft catheter in a manikin simulating an extremely preterm infant. METHODS: Randomized controlled crossover (AB/BA) trial. Fifty tertiary hospital consultants and pediatric residents. The primary outcome was the time of device positioning. The secondary outcomes were the success of the first attempt, the number of attempts, and the participant's opinion. RESULTS: Median time of device positioning was 19 s (interquartile range [IQR]: 15-25) with rigid catheter and 40 s (IQR: 28-66) with soft catheter (p < 0.0001). Success at first attempt was 92% with rigid catheter and 74% with soft catheter (p = 0.01). Median number of attempts was 1 (IQR: 1-1) with rigid catheter and 1 (IQR: 1-2) with soft catheter (p = 0.009). Participants found the rigid catheter easier to use (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a preterm manikin model, using a rigid catheter for less invasive surfactant administration was quicker and easier to use than a soft catheter.

Device positioning with LISA vs. INSURE: a crossover randomized controlled manikin trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare time of device positioning, success of procedure and operator's opinion with LISA vs. INSURE in a manikin simulating an extremely low birthweight infant. METHODS: A randomized controlled crossover (AB/BA) trial of surfactant administration with LISA vs. INSURE in a preterm manikin. Forty-two tertiary hospital consultants and pediatric residents with previous experience with LISA and INSURE participated. The primary outcome measure was the time of device positioning. The secondary outcome measures were: success of the first attempt, number of attempts, correct depth, and participant's opinion on difficulty in using the device. RESULTS: Median time of device positioning was shorter with LISA vs. INSURE (median difference -8 s, 95% confidence interval -16 to -1 s; p = .04). Success at first attempt was 35/40 with LISA (83%) and 31/40 with INSURE (74%) (p = .42). Median number of attempts was 1 (IQR 1-1) with LISA and 1 (IQR 1-2) with INSURE (p = .08). Correct depth was achieved in 30/40 with LISA (71%) and 37/40 with INSURE (88%) (p = .12). Participants found LISA easier to insert in the trachea (p = .002) but INSURE easier to place at the correct depth (p = .008). Handling the device (p = .43), visualizing the glottis (p = .17) and overall difficulty in using the device (p = .13) were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: In a preterm manikin model, positioning a thin catheter (LISA) was quicker and easier than a tracheal tube (INSURE), but the magnitude of the difference was unlikely to be clinically relevant and the tracheal tube was easier to place at the correct depth. REGISTRATION: clinicaltrial.gov NCT04944108.